AuthorTopic: Health Care (Read 32049 times)

1. One of the problems with treating healthcare as a right is the fact that enjoying it requires the labor of others. Unless one can have the right to the labor of others, one cannot have a right to healthcare. (Or to jury trials, for that matter, but juries could more easily be provided on a voluntary basis than healthcare.)

2. AndrewStebbins mentioned the lack of prevenative care. I think this is largely a product of perverse cost incentives--it's simply cheaper on average to wait until an emergency, if one happens. I'm not sure how to solve either without forcing people to pay the true cost of ER visits, which would be politically suicidal to propose. There's also a problem with unhealthy lifestyle choices, which I'm not sure how to solve without coercion, except perhaps lifting government subsidies on unhealthy things like corn syrup and lifting duties on imports of healthy foods.

Another problem with healthcare costs is the overregulation. For instance, a new prescription drug sits unavailable for at least 10 years after its development before it is even decided if it will ever be available to the public. Imagine if every time a new car was developed, Chevy had to wait 10 years before finding out if it gets to sell it. Car prices would skyrocket. Once drugs are finally produced, the prescription drug laws work to keep prices high. For instance, I take a prescription that costs $60 each month. There is another drug on the market that is the same exact medicine in 4x the dose. This drug, however, can only legally be prescribed for an ailment I don't have. It's cost? Also $60. Were this restriction lifted, I could purchase this second pill and a pill-cutter, instantly getting the same benefit for 1/4 the cost.

Another problem is that much of our healthcare expenses are guaranteed by the government programs, so there is no incentive among providers to keep costs down. (We see the same problem in the cost of tuition at universities--subsidized loans guarantee money for schools, who in turn have little incentive to control costs.)

3. If costs correlated with benefits, water would be the most expensive thing on earth.

4. The solution is not universal healthcare. Healthcare, unfortunately, has finite availability. When you give scarce things away for free, you run out. The task is to figure out the most efficient way to distribute the resources that we have, and central planning and single-payer systems (in any industry) have had a dismally poor track record throughout history.

One thing I think would do a lot is to lift most of the regulations on healthcare and allow patients, if they choose, to seek riskier treatment options (e.g. experimental or unapproved drugs, doctors with lesser credentials, etc.). We could also alter the law for drug patents adding a mandatory licensing fee, like we have for certain copyrights. That way generics could be available from day one while still offering the patent holders at least some protection.

I cant really get too involved because I dont have the time to sacrifice but I do have to chime in alittle on your #2 comment...Preventative care is undoubtedly much less expensive that ER care. ER care involves many more costs than does a regular check-up at a family doctor. Many people do not have regular check-ups because they cannot afford to pay out of pocket; instead, they wait til something serious happens and then they go to the ER where they will not be turned away. Well... Someone pays those salaries of the people who take care of this uninsured person and it is incidentally the people who HAVE insurance. Why not make preventative care available to EVERYONE and eliminate these types of inefficiencies... Also, the overcrowding of ERs for headaches and "back pain" hurts those who HAVE health insurance and HAVE emergencies. I don't want to wait 3 hours in an ER waiting room because I cut my hand and 10 people are trying to score OXY's.... I know I probably sound like I am regurgitating something that could be discussed on Bill Maher but the fact is that this is reality. There may be no perfect system of medical care for our country but I think we can agree that the one we have now is DEFINITELY not good, nevermind perfect...... We think that we are the "gold standard" example of how countries should be run but this is a complete delusion. The reality is that healthcare reform isnt being challenged because it is "bad" for american citizens; it is being challenged because it is SOOOO GOOOD financially for SOME citizens.... eh hem... Politicians....?

this pro-abortion issue must be resolved...part of the reason why this major tax hike needs more scrutiny..

bluedogs in charge.

24 democrats want succinct language...so the debate continues...

Rep. Bart Stupak...a michgn democrat said...a sharper focus is necessary... "to clarify that no federal funds should be used to fund abortions and the essential benefits package cannot define abortion as an essential service."

indigos are watching...

how about tort reform while we are at it...do this right.

Logged

If you prick us, do we not bleed? if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison us, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we not revenge? m.of v. w.shaka speare

Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) leftward push on the public option in healthcare reform ran into turbulence Thursday when a survey of her caucus showed she needs more votes to pass such a bill.

The survey ordered by Pelosi turned up 46 Democrats who said they would vote against the so-called “robust” public option, according to a Democratic lawmaker who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

If Republicans unite against the health bill, as they’re expected to do, 39 Democratic defectors would block it from getting the 218 votes needed to pass.

The Democratic lawmaker, who is in favor of the public option, said leaders are considering pulling the liberal public option from the bill and looking at other alternatives, such as a public option detached from Medicare coupled with an expansion of Medicaid, the healthcare program for the poor. That approach, called “negotiated rates,” is supported more by House centrists, including many Blue Dog Democrats.

A House leadership source said the decisions Thursday were “in flux.”

Meanwhile, The New York Times on Thursday reported that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is leaning toward including a public option in the healthcare reform bill he takes to the Senate floor.

After a meeting at the White House with President Barack Obama on Thursday, Reid said, “We had a good meeting, but no decisions were made.”

While Pelosi apparently needs to persuade more of her caucus to get behind her yet-to-be-released bill, she has a proven record of getting controversial bills to 218 votes. Earlier this year, Pelosi defied many pundits by passing a climate change bill, 219-212.

Pelosi on Thursday reaffirmed her support for some sort of government-run plan to compete with private insurance companies. But she did not insist on the “Medicare plus 5 percent” plan her fellow liberals are demanding. That plan ties provider reimbursement rates to Medicare, adding 5 percent.

“We will have a bill that will go to the floor, and it will have a public option in it,” Pelosi told reporters. “The question is, what form does that take?”

But she also said that the “negotiated rates” option, in which plan administrators negotiate reimbursement individually with providers, pushes costs higher than the $900 billion threshold set by President Barack Obama.

“The negotiated rates, which has some support in our caucus, is over $900 billion,” Pelosi told reporters.

Supporters of the more liberal option said their plan was still very much alive, and questioned the whip count.

Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) said many of the lawmakers who said they’re against the robust option want something else.

“The closer we get to 218, the more leverage there is for someone to raise concerns,” Weiner said. “There are definitely some things we need to address.”

Other lawmakers complained that some of the vote counters on the whip team were themselves against the Medicare-based public option. Some said members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus raised concerns about how legal immigrants would be covered. But Hispanic Caucus Chairwoman Nydia Velázquez (D-N.Y.) told The Hill her group supports Pelosi’s plan.

Opponents of the liberal approach have hinted that they could block it. Rep. Jim Matheson (D-Utah), a Blue Dog leader, said Wednesday that there are only 12 Blue Dogs who support the Medicare-based plan, suggesting that the other 40 oppose it. But he added that Blue Dogs hadn’t done their own vote count recently.

Other “no” votes could come from the left, because some members believe the final bill will fall well short of a single-payer approach.

And though the public option has dominated the debate among House Democrats, there are lawmakers threatening to vote against the bill for other reasons. Rep. Jason Altmire (D-Pa.) said he’d vote for the robust public option, but would vote against the bill because of the income surtax it would impose on the wealthy.

Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) has said he thinks there are many anti-abortion rights Democrats who are ready to block the bill because of their belief it would subsidize abortion. He said Thursday that he has negotiated with leadership, but they haven’t been able to come up with legislative language that satisfies both sides of the abortion debate.

Logged

If you prick us, do we not bleed? if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison us, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we not revenge? m.of v. w.shaka speare

...wow! aye mentioned the shift of the democrat party toward conservative concerns back in 06' and u laughed...now you really know who the bluedogs are...it is funny, now that the bluedogs control the congress...oh you fool...

and now the abortion issue is the concern regarding medical insurance reform...that public option could be doomed {if it isn't already} if the abortion issue is not addressed...

but then again...

aye told you so...

p.s. how about tort reform?

Logged

If you prick us, do we not bleed? if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison us, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we not revenge? m.of v. w.shaka speare